One lens to rule them all . . .

[KeithVH]

So, for those of you who bother to usually take 2 (or more) pieces of glass when you go into a park, have you ever just "winged it" and took just one body and one lens? And how happy were you with the results? Did you find yourself with situations where it wasn't wide enough or didn't have that much reach? I normally like to stay wide, especially in the parks, but you know as soon as you think that, there you go, you need a telephoto<sigh>.

Maybe the question is "What's the happy medium?"?

 

[drizgirl]

If I want to go with one lens, my favorite is probably my 24-105 f/4l. Great photos, reasonable range and lighter than my 2.8 alternatives. If I'm going in just for an evening, I'll use my 24-70 f/2.8. But that's heavier so don't choose it as often. Yes, I do miss the range. But it's a constant balance of how much do I want to carry.

I'm full frame, so 24 is reasonably wide, although not ultra wide angle.

 

[KeithVH]

I almost always have my 14-35L on my FF. But I guess I could drag along the 24-105. Then you add another battery or two, a couple more cards. Yadda yadda, yadda. When I hike I wear a vest and extra gear evenly distributed. Besides being too dang hot, can't imagine doing that in the parks.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Prime all the way. 35 equivalent. Smaller , optically superior. Forces you to make better work not being able to rely on a wide zoom range.

 

[drizgirl]

Prime all the way. 35 equivalent. Smaller , optically superior. Forces you to make better work not being able to rely on a wide zoom range.

I get all of that. But I think part of the consideration here is how often you are able to get to the parks and how long you have to spend on photography while you are there. Love the idea of pushing creativity with a prime, but if you don't have time to move around to adjust to a prime, or if your family is in a hurry to move on to the next time, sometimes the best photo is the one you actually get the chance to take.

 

[KeithVH]

Well, at this point, w/o the kids (which is still somewhat rare as they invite themselves on our vacations), I have the luxury to either (a) go in with DW and enjoy the parks or (b) go in to specifically shoot. 99% of the time I never mix the two. She is super understanding but I hate her having to stand around while I take 20 minutes to compose and shoot in various areas.

 

[senor_jorge]

24-105/2.8L is getting there for us. It’s larger and heavier than the f4, but optically superior. On the R3 I don’t really notice the weight. On the R6 it’s more noticeable but isn’t an issue in either case. I think a lot of that is what you are used to. When I go out to shoot wildlife I usually have a backpack that can weigh 35-40 lbs with glass, batteries, water etc. and it’s not unusual to walk 10-15 miles or more.

As much as I gravitate towards zooms I’ve consciously been forcing myself to use primes more often. I was finding that I was getting lazy and not putting myself in the right position and depending on the zoom and extra time editing to make up for sloppier composition than I was happy with.

 

[KeithVH]

24-105/2.8L is getting there for us. It’s larger and heavier than the f4, but optically superior. On the R3 I don’t really notice the weight. On the R6 it’s more noticeable but isn’t an issue in either case. I think a lot of that is what you are used to. When I go out to shoot wildlife I usually have a backpack that can weigh 35-40 lbs with glass, batteries, water etc. and it’s not unusual to walk 10-15 miles or more.

As much as I gravitate towards zooms I’ve consciously been forcing myself to use primes more often. I was finding that I was getting lazy and not putting myself in the right position and depending on the zoom and extra time editing to make up for sloppier composition than I was happy with.

The 24-105 was next on my list until the 200-800 was announced. It's not an L but I'm fascinated with the reach. Birding with the 70-200 isn't cutting it. Add the macro in and I'm back up to a fully loaded backpack again.<sigh>

Anyways, the 24-105 may be the solution. At least a fair compromise, especially for the parks.

 

[senor_jorge]

The 200-800 is on my list as well.

 

[thomas998]

Lot of it depends on the park and time you are going. A long lens really only makes sense if you are gong to AK and trying to capture some animals... I used to car multiple lenses, but honestly it became a hassle and I finally realized that these are vacation pictures... not like I was capturing photos to try and sell to national geographic... so the last time I just took a point and shoot with a 1 inch sensor with a 28 - 100mm equivalent lens. It eliminated me carrying the camera and flash and at the end of the day I got some decent photo of the kids which honestly are the only ones that will really matter in the future.

I realized I was not enjoying the trips as much when I took lots of camera gear because capturing photos was becoming the obsession and keeping me from just enjoying the moment. Next time you go ask yourself how often you bothered to look at those past photos and then decide if the act of capturing photos is getting in the way of enjoying the parks. I know there was a time when I became obsessed with trying to capture dark rides without a flash... spent a lot of money chasing that rabbit and at the end of the journey what was the point? I proved I could do it... but I don't think I've bothered to look at any of those photos in years and probably never will.